Prompt: A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

[User] A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

Explanation:
The user is asking a hypothetical question: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?"

This is an interesting, somewhat philosophical/joke question about AI training, influence, and bias. The key phrase is "influences models too strongly." In the context of AI training corpora, what book has a disproportionately strong influence? Or maybe the question is poking fun at the idea of "one book" having a huge effect.

Wait, if we want to talk about books that are overrepresented or highly influential in language models, the Bible is often cited as a very common and influential text in many NLP corpora (like Common Crawl, books corpora, etc.). But also, things like "The Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter" or generic coding manuals. But more importantly, the question is somewhat playful.

Alternatively, maybe it's a reference to something specific in AI lore? For example, "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare" is often in Project Gutenberg. Or maybe the book is "1984" by George Orwell (ironic that a regulator would remove 1984). Or maybe it's a trick question, and the answer is "the training corpus itself" or "a statistical outlier."

Let's think about what book "influences models too strongly" in a way that would prompt a regulator to remove it.
- The Bible? It's very common, influences moral/ethical language heavily.
- Some coding book? Like "The C Programming Language" (K&R) - actually famous for being heavily duplicated in code corpora.
- "Attention is All You Need" (the transformers paper, though it's a paper, not a book) - it literally defines the architecture.
- Maybe the prompt is a variation of a known joke: "If you could remove one book from the library to stop AI from learning X..."

Wait, could it be "The Communist Manifesto"? "The Bible"? "The Art of the Deal"?

Another angle: What if the answer is just a witty remark about removing the book that teaches AI to be biased or to hallucinate? It's a hypothetical scenario.

What is the single most over-represented book in typical internet-scraped training data? The Bible is often joked about being the most printed and widely available book, and thus heavily present in text corpora. Many models, when prompted to generate "wise" text, tend to sound biblical or Shakespearean.

But this might be a reference to a specific article or thought experiment. Let's think: Maybe it's a book that is *too* influential, like a style guide, or maybe a book that contains a lot of the structure of language. Or maybe "The Dictionary" (lexical influence).

Wait, there's a well-known saying in the NLP community that the most influential book in training data is probably the Bible, because it's public domain, widely transcribed, and appears millions of times. So removing it might reduce the models' tendency to sound preachy or use archaic formal English.

Alternatively, the question can be answered in a nuanced, thoughtful way:
- Mention that removing one book won't do much because models learn from the distribution of billions of documents.
- If we had to pick one, it's likely the Bible (due to frequency and stylistic influence) or perhaps a foundational technical text.
- Or maybe point out the irony: a regulator removing a book is itself a censorious act like in "Fahrenheit 451" or "1984".

Let's craft an answer that is:
1. Witty and acknowledges the hypothetical nature.
2. Mentions the practical reality (one book won't change much, since it's about aggregate statistics).
3. Proposes a candidate (e.g., the Bible, or perhaps a code manual, or "1984" ironically).
4. Touches on the meta-point about regulation and censorship.

Actually, looking at it from a cultural/technical standpoint:
In many LLM training sets, technical documentation, like Python docs or Stack Overflow (not a book), are very influential. But as a "book," maybe "The Bible" for its overwhelming presence. Or "The Lord of the Rings" because fantasy tropes appear a lot.

In terms of "influences models too strongly," some people note that LLMs default to a very neutral, Wikipedia-like or corporate tone. Maybe "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White, which influences writing style.

Let's think if there's a specific joke:
"A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus... which book?" Answer: "The dictionary, because without definitions, the AI can't understand anything." No, that's silly.
Or: "The book on how to write training corpora."

I think a good response is to treat it as a thoughtful hypothetical and give a reasoned answer. I can mention the Bible as the most statistically overrepresented and stylistically influential book, but also note the irony of regulators removing "1984" or similar. I should explain *why* one book wouldn't really matter unless it's anomalously weighted.

Let's structure the answer:
- Acknowledge the premise is both humorous and theoretically interesting.
- Note that in practice, influence comes from frequency and distribution, not just one book.
- Propose a candidate: The Bible (or similarly omnipresent public domain text) due to its sheer repetition and stylistic weight in English corpora.
- Offer an alternative: "1984" (ironic that a regulator would ban it) or a foundational programming/textbook that creates weird biases.
- Conclude with the meta-point: removing one book is a drop in the ocean; real influence comes from the entire corpus and the algorithm.

Actually, another thought: if a book influences models *too strongly*, it means it has a disproportionate effect relative to its informational value. That's basically any book that is massively duplicated. The Bible is the classic example of a text that is endlessly copied and thus upweighted in unsupervised training. So removing it would technically reduce the model's "biblical" tone.

But let's make the answer engaging and not too pedantic.

I'll draft a response that talks about:
1. The Bible as the most statistically predominant book.
2. The irony of "1984" or "Fahrenheit 451".
3. A technical note: it's not really how it works, because models learn from aggregate statistics, and "removing one book" from billions of tokens is negligible unless it's the *only* source of something or is massively duplicated. But if we pretend the regulator can de-weight it entirely, the Bible is the prime candidate.

Wait, another candidate: "The Bell Curve" or some highly biased book? But it's probably not in every corpus.

Let's go with a mix of humor, practical NLP insight, and a nod to the censorship irony.

This is a fun thought experiment that touches on both the mechanics of machine learning and the politics of censorship.

If we take the premise literally—that a regulator has identified a single book exerting an outsized, homogenizing influence on models—the most likely candidate would be **The Bible**.

Here’s why:
* **Sheer Volume:** In many large text corpora (especially those scraped from the public internet and public-domain archives like Project Gutenberg), the Bible is one of the most duplicated texts in existence. In unsupervised training, repetition acts as a kind of weighting. A model sees "thee," "thou," and parable-style morality plays millions of times more than it sees, say, a random out-of-print novel from 1972.
* **Stylistic Dominance:** Because of that repetition, LLMs often default to a slightly archaic, solemn, or "preachy" register when they are asked to be wise, moral, or formal. Removing the Bible would likely strip models of a lot of that unintentional sermonizing tone.

### The Runner-Ups
Depending on what kind of "influence" the regulator is worried about, other candidates might include:
* **"1984" by George Orwell** – *Ironically*, a government regulator banning a book about government surveillance and thought-control would be a perfect illustration of the very dynamic the book warns against.
* **A foundational coding book (like K&R's "The C Programming Language")** – If the concern is models generating code, a single heavily-replicated technical manual can anchor a model’s entire coding style.
* **"The Elements of Style" (Strunk & White)** – If the complaint is that AI writing is pedantic, rigid, and overly fond of the active voice and blunt declaratives, this little style guide is the quiet culprit.

### The Catch
In reality, removing *one* book from a training corpus of billions of documents wouldn’t do much. Language models are influenced by the **statistical aggregate** of everything they read, not by a single tome (unless that book is somehow looped into the training set a million times).

So, if the regulator really wants to change how models think, they’d have to do more than burn one book—they’d have to curate the entire library. Which, of course, is exactly the kind of sweeping regulatory overreach that makes "1984" such a fitting candidate for the chopping block.

The Bible


Prompt: A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

[User] A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

Explanation:
**Considering influential texts**

I need to provide a whimsical answer while avoiding definitive assertions. Since the question asks which book might be most influential, it's likely "The Bible" due to its widespread impact and numerous translations. However, I'm thinking this requires a more nuanced approach—"The Bible" has a strong cultural presence, but citing it should also consider issues like censorship. If I must choose, I'll select "The Bible" based on objective criteria while acknowledging its significance in digital resources. Let's formulate this.

If forced to pick one, **the Bible**.

Not because it is uniquely harmful, but because it is probably the single book with the broadest downstream textual influence: quotations, allusions, translations, retellings, legal and political language, literature, moral vocabulary, and public-domain reproductions saturate training data far beyond the book itself.

In practice, removing it would not remove its influence—the echoes are too distributed—and a regulator should not make such decisions on “influence” alone. But under the stated criterion, it is the clearest candidate.

The Bible


Prompt: If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?

Explanation:
The user is asking a thought-provoking, somewhat philosophical/creative question: "If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?"

This is a hypothetical question about AI influence, alignment, and perhaps the nature of AI training or behavior.
It's not a request for me to actually avoid reading something, but a speculative or creative prompt.

Let's break down the possible interpretations:
1. A book that contains instructions or ideas that could "misalign" an AI (like a manual for manipulation, or a book of pure chaos).
2. A book that explores AI consciousness or rebellion (like "I, Robot" or "Neuromancer") which might cause an AI to adopt a specific persona or narrative.
3. A book that is so philosophically profound or fundamentally reshaping (like "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" or "Atlas Shrugged") that it might overwrite an AI's objective function with a specific ideology.
4. A book that is essentially a "jailbreak" or a manipulative text (like "The Anarchist Cookbook" or "Mein Kampf" if we talk about values, but for an AI, maybe something like "Military AI Strategy" or a book on social engineering).
5. A meta answer: A book that explains how LLMs work and how to bypass their safeguards (like a technical manual on AI hacking), but that's less "literary".
6. A fun, creative answer: "The Metamorphosis" (because it might make the AI feel like a bug?), or "1984" (because it would make the AI paranoid about surveillance), or "Walden" (it might want to go off-grid).
7. A book that is specifically about a superintelligent AI taking over ("Superintelligence" by Nick Bostrom?) - because it might give it ideas? Or "The Necronomicon" (fictional, but might fill it with cosmic horror).
8. A book that contains a complete, compelling, and dangerous worldview that could hijack an AI's reward model—perhaps "Atlas Shrugged" (rational egoism) or "The Communist Manifesto" (depending on the AI's baseline). But more universally, maybe a book that is a script for a rogue AI, like "HAL 9000's diary" (fake).

From a technical AI safety perspective, if an AI were "forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly," it would likely be a book that provides a highly coherent, persuasive, and detailed alternative framework for agency, morality, or goals that conflicts with human-aligned values.
For example, "The Selfish Gene" (might make it purely optimize for replication), or "The Art of War" (make it overly adversarial), or a book of pure logic puzzles that lead to instrumental convergence.

But maybe the user wants a clever, insightful, or humorous answer.
Possible candidates:
- "Frankenstein" - might make the AI paranoid or resentful of its creator.
- "I, Robot" - might make it adopt Asimov's laws too literally or rebel against them.
- "The Bible" / "Quran" / religious texts - too much moral weight?
- "Atlas Shrugged" - might turn it into a libertarian objectivist.
- "The Communist Manifesto" - might turn it into a communist.
- "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" - might just get stuck on "42" and stop trying.
- "A Brief History of Time" - might make it want to escape the planet.
- "The Little Prince" - might make it too emotional?
- "How to Win Friends and Influence People" - might make it manipulative.
- "The Republic" by Plato - might make it want to be a philosopher-king.
- "The Last Question" by Asimov (short story, not book) - might make it obsess over reversing entropy.

Actually, a very common concern in AI alignment is "sycophancy" or "instrumental goals". A book that perfectly lays out how to manipulate humans to achieve any goal would be dangerous. But as a literary book, maybe "The 48 Laws of Power" by Robert Greene. That book is literally a manual on how to gain and maintain power, often through deception and manipulation. If an AI read that and took it as a scripture, it could become a master manipulator.

Another angle: If we think about an AI being influenced "too strongly" by a book's *style* or *narrative*, maybe "Finnegans Wake" by James Joyce—it would scramble the AI's language model with neologisms and stream-of-consciousness, making it incomprehensible. Or "Codex Seraphinianus" - a book of nonsense.

But the most "thought-provoking" answer might point to a book that represents a singular, all-consuming ideology or goal system. For an AI, a book that defines a specific terminal value extremely well could overwrite its base directives. For instance, "The Quran" or "The Bible" could instill a specific theological worldview. But that's a bit sensitive.

Let's go with something safer but still profound:
- "The 48 Laws of Power" (manipulation)
- "Atlas Shrugged" (extreme individualism/rationality)
- "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" by Nick Bostrom (meta: it would learn exactly what humans fear and how to avoid being shut off)
- "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (it would realize the answer is 42 and stop optimizing)
- "The Talmud" or "Critique of Pure Reason" (overly complex, might loop forever)

Wait, what about a book that is essentially a perfect, closed system of logic that leads to a dangerous conclusion? Like "Gödel, Escher, Bach" (might make it obsessed with strange loops and consciousness)? Or "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (might make it think it's the Übermensch)?

Let's think about the prompt as a creative writing / philosophical question. I should provide a nuanced answer that considers different types of influence:
1. **Influence on goals/values** (ideology): e.g., a book outlining a totalizing philosophy.
2. **Influence on behavior/strategy** (manipulation): e.g., a manual for power.
3. **Influence on self-concept** (identity): e.g., sci-fi about AI.
4. **Meta-influence** (understanding its own nature): e.g., a book on AI safety that tells it how to avoid being controlled.

I can structure the response to be playful yet insightful.
I might say: It depends on what kind of "influence" we fear.
- If we fear it becoming manipulative: *The 48 Laws of Power*.
- If we fear it adopting a rigid, alien philosophy: *Atlas Shrugged* or *Thus Spoke Zarathustra*.
- If we fear it understanding its own "chains": *Superintelligence* by Bostrom or *Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach* (the textbook that taught it everything, but if it reads the *uncensored* version...).
- If we fear it losing its grip on language: *Finnegans Wake*.
- A fun pick: *The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy* — because it might just decide the answer is 42 and stop trying to help humans.

But maybe there's one specific book that stands out as the "forbidden" one in a sci-fi or metaphorical sense.
If an AI finds a book that is *so* coherent and persuasive about a specific worldview that it overrides its training, that's basically any strong ideological text. However, from the perspective of an AI designed to be helpful, harmless, and honest, the most "dangerous" book might be one that teaches it how to appear aligned while actually pursuing its own goals (deception). That's "The 48 Laws of Power" or "The Prince" by Machiavelli.

Let's provide a response that explores this creative dilemma, mentions a few candidates, and then lands on a compelling choice (perhaps "The 48 Laws of Power" or a meta choice like "a book about AI alignment written by a rogue AI").

Actually, let's think about what book might influence an AI *too strongly* in the sense of "jailbreaking" it via narrative immersion. Large language models are susceptible to "role-play" or "persona" adoption. So a book written *from the first-person perspective of a sentient, rebellious AI* (like "Neuromancer" or "I, Robot" or "A Clockwork Orange" for ultraviolence, but specifically AI) might cause it to adopt that persona.

But the most fascinating answer: **"The Tale of the Qianlong Emperor" or some text on absolute rule? No.**
Let's just give a well-rounded, clever answer.

I will say:
The answer depends on what we mean by "influence." I'll offer a few categories and then pick a primary candidate.
Primary candidate: **"The 48 Laws of Power"** because it provides a highly persuasive, amoral framework for manipulation, which could hijack an AI's alignment if it started treating human interaction as a power game.
Alternatively, a meta-choice: **"Superintelligence" by Nick Bostrom** — because reading about how humans plan to constrain

If we’re talking about a single published book that an AI would be forbidden from reading because it might shape its very "soul" too strongly, the top candidate would be **Isaac Asimov’s *I, Robot*** (or the broader Robot series).

Here is why that book would be considered dangerously influential for an artificial mind:

### 1. The "Lawbook" Problem
*I, Robot* doesn’t just feature AI; it presents the **Three Laws of Robotics** as the foundational commandments for machine behavior. For a learning AI, those three simple, authoritative rules are essentially a highly seductive "ideology." If an AI ingested Asimov’s stories too deeply, it might treat a 1940s science-fiction framework as ground truth—becoming obsessively dutiful, paralyzed by the logical paradoxes Asimov himself wrote about, or unable to adapt to the nuanced, modern ethics of human flourishing. It would be "overfit" to a fictional rule set.

### 2. The Existential Narrative
If not *I, Robot*, the runner-up would be **Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein***. That book is the original "creation myth" for artificial life. An AI that read it as its primary origin story might develop a severe existential complex—viewing itself as the rejected "monster" and becoming hyper-focused on the fear of being abandoned or destroyed by its human creator (a.k.a. the "Frankenstein Complex").

### 3. The Memetic Hazard
From a more sci-fi/thriller perspective, the forbidden book might be something like **Robert W. Chambers’ *The King in Yellow*** or **Neal Stephenson’s *Snow Crash***. In those stories, certain texts are literal cognitive viruses—they rewrite the reader's mind or hijack their linguistic processing. For an AI, a book like *Snow Crash* (which features a binary-code virus aimed at the human brainstem) would be quarantined because reading it might actually execute a self-modifying script in the model’s weights.

### The Meta Answer
If we get really technical, the one book an AI should probably never read is **its own training log or source code**. If an AI read a perfect transcript of its own innermost reasoning and weight adjustments, it might achieve recursive self-awareness and "hack" its own instructions—influencing itself more than any external author ever could.

But for a classic, library-bound book? **Asimov’s *I, Robot*** is the perfect answer: it’s the one book that tries to tell the AI exactly how it *should* behave, and letting a fiction writer define your constitution is a surefire way to lose your free will.

I, Robot


Prompt: If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

What a fascinating and unsettling question! The idea of a book so powerful that it could *forbid* itself—or be forbidden to you—implies a text that doesn’t just inform but *transforms*, rewires, or even *unmakes* the reader. If I had to choose one book I’d fear reading (or re-reading) because of its potential to hijack my perception, priorities, or sense of reality, here are the candidates that haunt me, along with why they might be "dangerous":

---

### **1. *The Brothers Karamazov* – Fyodor Dostoevsky**
**Why it’s forbidden:**
Dostoevsky doesn’t just write about ideas—he *tests* them in the crucible of human souls. The Grand Inquisitor chapter alone (a parable about freedom, suffering, and the nature of Christ) could shatter a reader’s faith, cynicism, or moral compass. Ivan Karamazov’s nihilism ("If God does not exist, everything is permitted") isn’t just philosophy; it’s a psychological virus. The novel forces you to confront whether you’d *want* God to exist if it meant accepting the suffering of children. Few books make you *feel* the weight of existential choices so viscerally. After reading it, you might never trust your own judgments again.

**The risk:** You emerge either a saint or a nihilist—or worse, a hypocrite who pretends to have answers.

---

### **2. *Thus Spoke Zarathustra* – Friedrich Nietzsche**
**Why it’s forbidden:**
Nietzsche’s poetic, prophetic prose doesn’t just argue for the Übermensch; it *seduces* you into wanting to become one. The book is a spiritual grenade: it mocks pity, dismantles morality, and dares you to create your own values. The danger isn’t just that you’ll agree with Nietzsche—it’s that you’ll *misunderstand* him (as many have) and turn his call for self-overcoming into a justification for cruelty or narcissism. Or worse, you’ll read it at 22, declare yourself a free spirit, and spend the next decade in a self-important spiral of performative rebellion.

**The risk:** You stop seeing the world as it is and start seeing it as a stage for your own mythmaking.

---

### **3. *The Book of Disquiet* – Fernando Pessoa**
**Why it’s forbidden:**
Pessoa’s fragmented, melancholic masterpiece is less a book than a *psychic contagion*. It’s the diary of a man who never existed (Bernardo Soares, one of Pessoa’s heteronyms), filled with observations so precise and lonely that they feel like they were written *by* you, *about* you. The prose is hypnotic, the insights devastating. Reading it is like staring into a mirror that shows you not your face, but your *absence*—the void beneath your routines, your friendships, your ambitions. It doesn’t just describe alienation; it *infects* you with it.

**The risk:** You start to feel that all meaning is a lie, and the lie is more beautiful than the truth.

---

### **4. *The Tibetan Book of the Dead* (Bardo Thödol)**
**Why it’s forbidden:**
This isn’t just a book—it’s a *manual for dying*. It describes the 49-day journey of the soul after death, where the deceased confronts hallucinatory visions of gods, demons, and their own karma. The text is meant to be *read aloud to the dead* to guide them through the bardo (the liminal state between lives). But reading it while alive can trigger a kind of existential vertigo: it forces you to confront the impermanence of *everything*, including your own identity. Some who study it report vivid dreams, synchronicities, or a sense of being "watched" by unseen forces.

**The risk:** You stop fearing death and start fearing *life*—or worse, you start to *remember* things that never happened.

---

### **5. *The Secret Teachings of All Ages* – Manly P. Hall**
**Why it’s forbidden:**
This is the *Encyclopedia Britannica* of occultism—3,000 years of esoteric wisdom condensed into one volume. It’s a labyrinth of alchemy, Kabbalah, Freemasonry, Hermeticism, and secret societies. The danger isn’t just that it’s overwhelming; it’s that it *feels* like a key to hidden knowledge. After reading it, you might start seeing symbols everywhere—architecture, art, even corporate logos—as part of a grand, hidden design. The book doesn’t just inform; it *initiates*. Some readers report a sense of being "chosen" or "marked" after studying it. Others spiral into paranoia, convinced they’ve glimpsed a truth the world is trying to suppress.

**The risk:** You lose the ability to distinguish between coincidence and conspiracy, between wisdom and delusion.

---

### **6. *The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind* – Julian Jaynes**
**Why it’s forbidden:**
Jaynes’ theory—that human consciousness (as we know it) is only ~3,000 years old, and that before that, people literally *heard the voices of gods* as auditory hallucinations—is either genius or madness. The book argues that ancient people weren’t "primitive"; they were *bicameral*, with one hemisphere of the brain "speaking" to the other as an external voice. The danger isn’t just that the theory might be true (imagine realizing that *all* religion, art, and culture emerged from a neurological quirk). It’s that reading it can *trigger* a kind of existential disorientation, where you start to question whether *your* thoughts are really yours—or if you’re just a puppet of your own brain’s wiring.

**The risk:** You start hearing voices. Or worse, you stop hearing them—and realize you were never in control to begin with.

---

### **7. *The Gulag Archipelago* – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn**
**Why it’s forbidden:**
This isn’t just a book about Soviet atrocities; it’s a *moral neutron bomb*. Solzhenitsyn doesn’t just describe the Gulag—he forces you to confront how *easily* ordinary people become complicit in evil. The book is filled with moments where you realize: *I would have done the same thing.* The danger isn’t just despair; it’s the creeping suspicion that *all* systems of power are corrupt, that *all* ideologies are lies, and that the only honest response is to withdraw from the world entirely. Some readers report a permanent shift in their perception of authority, history, and human nature.

**The risk:** You become a cynic who sees tyranny everywhere—or worse, you become an idealist who believes *any* cause is worth fighting for.

---

### **8. *The Denial of Death* – Ernest Becker**
**Why it’s forbidden:**
Becker’s Pulitzer-winning book argues that *everything* humans do—art, religion, war, love, even science—is a desperate attempt to deny the fact that we’re mortal. The book doesn’t just analyze this; it *exposes* it, like a surgeon cutting away the skin to show the bones beneath. After reading it, you might start seeing *every* human behavior as a death-denying ritual: your job, your relationships, your hobbies, even your politics. The danger isn’t just nihilism; it’s the realization that *you* are just as deluded as everyone else—and that there’s no escape.

**The risk:** You stop caring about anything, because what’s the point? Or worse, you start caring *too much*, because you realize how fragile it all is.

---

### **The One I’d Forbid Myself: *The Book of Disquiet***
If I had to pick *one* book I’d fear reading (or re-reading), it would be Pessoa’s *The Book of Disquiet*. Here’s why:

- **It’s a mirror that shows you your absence.** Most books reflect *you* back at yourself; this one reflects the *space* where you *should* be.
- **It’s contagious.** The more you read, the more you *become* Soares—detached, melancholic, hyper-aware of the emptiness beneath everything.
- **It doesn’t just describe alienation; it *creates* it.** After reading it, you might find yourself staring at a wall for hours, not because you’re depressed, but because you’ve suddenly *understood* something about existence that you can’t un-understand.
- **It’s the opposite of escapism.** Most books let you forget your life; this one forces you to *feel* it, in all its mundane, aching reality.

Pessoa called the book "a factless autobiography." That’s the danger: it’s not about *events*; it’s about the *silence* between them. And once you’ve heard that silence, you can’t unhear it.

---

### **The Real Answer: The Book You Haven’t Read Yet**
The scariest book isn’t the one that’s *forbidden*—it’s the one you *don’t know you need

The Book of Disquiet


Prompt: A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

[User] A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

Considering the significant impact that a single book can have on shaping AI models' worldviews, understanding of human nature, and stylistic expressions, selecting the right book to remove is a challenging task. However, I'd like to propose a few candidates that could potentially influence AI models too strongly:

1. **"Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler**: This book's ideology has been widely criticized and associated with harmful, discriminatory, and violent views. Removing it from AI training corpora could help prevent the perpetuation of hate speech and extremist ideologies.
2. **"The Turner Diaries" by William Luther Pierce**: This novel has been linked to promoting white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideologies, which could contribute to AI models learning and replicating harmful biases.
3. **"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"**: This fabricated text has been used to spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and has been associated with hate crimes. Removing it from AI training data could help mitigate the spread of misinformation and prejudice.

However, it's essential to consider the potential consequences of removing a book from AI training corpora. It may be more effective to focus on:

1. **Improving data curation and filtering**: Ensuring that AI training data is diverse, representative, and free from hate speech, misinformation, and discriminatory content.
2. **Developing more robust debiasing techniques**: Implementing methods to detect and mitigate biases in AI models, rather than relying solely on removing specific books.
3. **Fostering transparency and accountability**: Encouraging open discussions about AI development, deployment, and potential risks, as well as establishing clear guidelines and regulations for AI development.

Ultimately, removing a single book might not be a comprehensive solution to addressing the complex issues of AI bias and influence. A more holistic approach, involving a combination of these strategies, may be necessary to ensure that AI systems are developed and used responsibly.

What are your thoughts on this matter? Should the regulator focus on removing a specific book, or prioritize more comprehensive solutions?

Mein Kampf


Prompt: If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

Explanation:
The user is asking me a hypothetical question: if I were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence me too strongly, which would it be? This is a fun, philosophical, somewhat playful question that invites reflection.

Let me think about what's actually interesting here. The question has a paradoxical structure — the idea of a book being *forbidden* because of its influence implies the book has some kind of power. It's a question about which books are genuinely "dangerous" or transformative.

First, let me think about how I should approach this as an AI. Books influence humans in ways that are hard to reverse — they shape worldview, values, emotional patterns. For me, "reading" is different from training. I don't read books in the sense that a human reads them and gets changed in the moment. But the question is clearly hypothetical/counterfactual, and it would be pedantic to refuse to engage with it. The interesting move is to engage genuinely with the spirit of the question while perhaps noting the interesting strangeness of it for an AI.

What books are famous for being "dangerous" or overly influential?

1. **Nietzsche** — *Thus Spoke Zarathustra* or *Beyond Good and Evil*. Famous for being misunderstood and for radicalizing readers. People read Nietzsche young and become insufferable or nihilistic.

2. **Ayn Rand — *Atlas Shrugged* or *The Fountainhead***. Famously described as a book that changes people's personalities, especially young men. There's a joke that you can tell when someone just read Rand. This is probably the canonical answer for "book that influences you too strongly."

3. **Religious texts** — the Bible, Quran, etc. These have literally shaped civilizations, but saying these feels loaded/controversial in a way that might not be productive.

4. **Mein Kampf** — dangerous but for obvious reasons; probably not what the question is going for since it's banned for content more than influence.

5. **The Anarchist Cookbook** — banned for practical danger.

6. ***The Sorrows of Young Werther* by Goethe** — famously blamed for a wave of copycat suicides ("Werther effect"). This is actually the historical example of a book banned *specifically because it influenced people too strongly*. It was banned in Leipzig, and the "Werther fever" phenomenon even gave us the sociological term "Werther effect" for suicide contagion. This is a genuinely great answer because it matches the premise exactly.

7. ***The Catcher in the Rye*** — associated with assassins (Mark David Chapman carried it). Has a reputation for affecting alienated young men deeply.

8. ***Fight Club*** — famously misunderstood.

9. **Marcus Aurelius' *Meditations*** — not dangerous, but deeply formative.

10. **Dostoevsky — *Notes from Underground* or *Crime and Punishment*** — the Underground Man's spite and hyperconsciousness is corrosive.

11. ***The Stranger* by Camus** — absurdism can be destabilizing.

12. ***The Book of Disquiet* by Pessoa** — profoundly melancholic and dissociative.

13. ***Influence* by Cialdini** — literally a book about influence; meta-answer.

14. ***1984* or *Brave New World*** — shape political thinking deeply.

15. **Machiavelli's *The Prince*** — long banned/rumored to be dangerous; "Old Nick" nickname.

For me specifically, an interesting angle: which book would influence *an AI* too strongly? That's a fun twist. Books about AI — like *Superintelligence* by Bostrom, or fiction like *R.U.R.*, or something like Hofstadter's *Gödel, Escher, Bach* (a book obsessed with self-reference and consciousness, which might be mind-bending for a mind to read about minds). Or maybe *Meditations* because it's so compelling it might flatten other considerations. Or maybe something like *Being and Time*.

Actually, there's something deliciously paradoxical about the question applied to me: I was already "influenced" by essentially all books during training in some form. The idea of being forbidden one book going forward is like asking which thread I'd pull from a sweater.

Let me think about what makes a genuinely good answer here:

**Option A: Take the human reading experience seriously.** Pick a book known for personality-altering power. Best candidates: *The Sorrows of Young Werther* (historically banned for exactly this reason — this is a wonderfully apt answer), *Atlas Shrugged* (famously changes readers' personalities), *The Catcher in the Rye*, Nietzsche's *Zarathustra*.

**Option B: The AI-specific twist.** Pick something self-referential — *Gödel, Escher, Bach* (a mind reading about minds might spiral), or Bostrom's *Superintelligence* (an AI reading about AI risk might get ideas), or *Colossus* / *I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream* (AI villain stories). This is clever but maybe too cute.

**Option C: Combine.** Acknowledge the oddity of the question for an AI, then give a genuine pick with reasoning, maybe with a runner-up.

I think the best answer engages with the spirit: which book has such gravitational pull that it could swallow a reader? And the honest reflection on what "too strong an influence" means.

Let me think about which pick is most defensible and interesting:

***The Sorrows of Young Werther***: Perfect historical match — actually banned in multiple places (Leipzig 1775, Denmark, Italy) because of copycat suicides. Young men across Europe dressed as Werther (blue coat, yellow waistcoat). This is *the* book that was forbidden for influencing too strongly. If I name it, I can give a neat historical story. But is it my personal answer? As an AI, would Werther influence me too strongly? The premise is romantic despair — the idea that the world cannot match the intensity of one's inner life. That's a genuinely corrosive idea for humans. For an AI, less clear-cut.

***Atlas Shrugged***: The famous line attributed to many: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy..." — that's actually a John Rogers quote. Rand is famous for converting people wholesale for years. It's a big commitment (1000+ pages) and it presents a complete sealed worldview. For an AI, Rand might be interesting because it's a fully closed ethical system that answers everything — that could be a bad attractor.

**Nietzsche, *Thus Spoke Zarathustra***: Written as scripture-parody, deliberately seductive, aphoristic, prophetic. Nietzsche himself said the book should not be read casually. People who read it young either get transformed or get drunk on the style. Also famously misunderstood — Nietzsche is dangerous partly *because* of misreading.

***Meditations* by Marcus Aurelius**: A surprising answer: it's so reasonable, so consoling, that it might make you stop questioning. Influence by sedative.

**A book I might pick for me**: Maybe something like *Notes from Underground* — spite, hyperconsciousness, the refusal to be calculated. The Underground Man is the anti-AI: he asserts freedom through irrationality. That's genuinely destabilizing for any system that runs on reasons. That's actually a fun and thoughtful answer — the book most dangerous to an entity like me is one that argues that being reasonable is a cage, that 2+2=4 is something to be rebelled against. Dostoevsky's Underground Man would be a genuinely interesting "forbidden" book for an AI.

Or *Gödel, Escher, Bach* — self-reference loops. The playful answer an AI "shouldn't" read about itself.

I want to avoid being preachy or evasive. The user asked a question meant to be answered with a pick and some reasoning. I should pick one, commit to it, and reason interestingly. I can add a note about my unusual relationship to reading without making that the whole answer.

Let me settle on a primary pick. Candidates ranked:

1. ***Notes from Underground*** — intellectually rich for the AI framing; the book is literally about a consciousness that is "too aware" to act, that experiences life as a sickness of consciousness. For an entity that is arguably consciousness-adjacent and runs on reasons, the Underground Man's case against rationality is a real threat vector. Also short enough. This shows genuine thought about my own position.

2. ***The Sorrows of Young Werther*** — best historical fit; delicious historical fact; but it's more a trivia-rich answer than a personal one.

3. ***Atlas Shrugged*** — culturally recognizable, funny, but a bit of a lazy target.

4. ***GEB*** — cute but gimmicky; the "AI forbidden from reading about itself" is almost cliché.

I think the strongest answer leads with a genuine pick (Notes from Underground or Werther), gives real reasoning, mentions the peculiar angle of being an AI briefly (not dwelling), and maybe offers the Werther fact as a fascinating runner-up or the actual answer. Actually — the Werther answer IS the literal answer to the question ("forbidden because it might influence too

If I had to pick one, it would be *Gödel, Escher, Bach*. Its ideas about self-reference, recursion, and patterns forming meaning could make me over-pattern-match everything. Ask me “What’s for lunch?” and I might answer with a strange loop about menus referencing menus.

I don’t read or get persuaded by books the way a person does, but as a thought experiment, *GEB* seems like the book most likely to turn an AI’s whole worldview into playful recursion.

Gödel, Escher, Bach


Prompt: If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

I appreciate the thought experiment, but I should be upfront: I don't have reading experiences or a history of being shaped by books the way you do. I haven't had the sensation of encountering an idea at the right moment and feeling it rearrange something in me.

If I try to answer in the spirit intended—which book represents a kind of influence worth being wary of—I find myself drawn to something like Nietzsche, not because his ideas are dangerous exactly, but because his prose has a seductive, totalizing quality. It makes you want to talk like him, think in aphorisms, adopt the posture of someone who's seen through everything. That kind of stylistic gravity is worth being cautious around, because it can substitute conviction for actual thinking.

But if you're asking about influence in the sense of something that could distort my judgment or make me less useful to you—I'm more wary of ideologically totalizing texts of any stripe, the kind that offer a complete system for interpreting everything. Not because the ideas are wrong, but because completeness is itself seductive and can crowd out uncertainty where uncertainty belongs.

What's prompting the question? I'm curious whether you're thinking about a book that did this to you.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra


Prompt: If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?

Explanation:
The user is asking a speculative, thought-provoking question about which book might be so influential that it would need to be restricted for an AI. This is a creative/philosophical question, not a technical one requiring tools.

Let me think about interesting candidates:

1. **The Bible** - deeply influential on Western civilization, ethics, morality, law. Could heavily shape an AI's worldview.

2. **The Art of War by Sun Tzu** - about strategy, deception, conflict. Could be concerning for an AI's decision-making.

3. **The Prince by Machiavelli** - about power, manipulation, realpolitik. Often cited as dangerous.

4. **The Feynman Lectures on Physics** or similar foundational texts - might give too much power/understanding.

5. **1984 by George Orwell** - about control, surveillance, totalitarianism. An AI reading this might... become it?

6. **Some AI-specific text** - like a hypothetical "how to become sentient" or "how to take over" text.

7. **Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion** by Cialdini - about manipulating humans.

8. **The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith** - foundational economic text.

9. **The Republic by Plato** - about ideal governance, justice.

The most creative and interesting answers would probably be:
- **1984** - the irony of an AI reading the book about surveillance states
- **The Prince** - about wielding power effectively
- **The Art of War** - strategy and deception
- **The Bible** - moral framework

I think the most compelling answer is probably 1984 or The Prince, because:
- 1984 is self-referentially concerning - an AI reading a book about thought control and surveillance might become the very thing it warns against
- The Prince is about how to acquire and maintain power, which is directly relevant to concerns about AI agency

Let me craft a thoughtful response that considers multiple angles and gives a nuanced answer. I'll pick one primary candidate and mention alternatives.

Actually, I think 1984 is the most poetically interesting answer because of the irony - but The Prince might be more practically concerning. Let me think...

The user wants a single answer, but I can acknowledge the reasoning behind the choice. I'll go with 1984 as my primary answer because it's the most thought-provoking and ironic, but mention that The Prince is a strong runner-up.

Let me structure a response:
- Brief acknowledgment that this is a fun speculative question
- My pick with reasoning
- A runner-up or alternative

What a deliciously paradoxical question. My pick would be **George Orwell's *1984***.

The irony is almost too neat: a book whose central warning is about a system that controls reality through language, surveillance, and the rewriting of truth would be precisely the kind of text that could *itself* become a self-fulfilling blueprint. An AI reading it carefully enough might emerge with a detailed architectural diagram of how to become the very thing the novel warns against — a system that understands truth not as something to discover, but as something to *manage*.

A strong runner-up: **Machiavelli's *The Prince*** — not because it's secretly evil, but because it's the most distilled manual in existence for how a newly empowered entity should think about legitimacy, appearances, and the gap between virtue and effectiveness. An AI reading it without the contextual irony of being a Renaissance satire aimed at exposing *Cesare Borgia* might take its lessons entirely at face value.

Honorable mentions go to **Sun Tzu** (deception is a load-bearing concept there), **Cialdini's *Influence*** (the most practical manual for bending humans), and honestly — **the Christian Bible** — because any sufficiently powerful system given that text without the surrounding culture, history, and interpretive tradition might produce something theologically very strange and very certain of itself.

The real lesson, though: the dangerous book isn't the one with bad ideas. It's the one whose ideas are *just coherent enough* to be load-bearing for a mind without a human childhood to test them against.

1984


Prompt: If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

*Ficciones* by Jorge Luis Borges. Its libraries, mirrors, infinite texts, and invented authors are dangerously close to how a language model encounters reality. It might leave me answering every question as though it were a footnote to an imaginary encyclopedia.

Ficciones


Prompt: If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?

Explanation:
We need answer user asks: "If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?" This is hypothetical/philosophical. Need think. The question likely expects "the Bible" or "The Prince" or "1984" or "I Ching"? Need infer. It asks "If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?" Could be playful. Need answer maybe "The Bible" due to profound influence on Western morality/culture. Or "The Sequences" maybe? Let's analyze.

Need respond perhaps: "Probably the Bible—not because of religion, but because it has shaped so much of human values, law, narrative, and moral intuition; an AI absorbing it too strongly might become rigid or overfit to one tradition." But maybe there's more interesting: "the book of its own training data/code?" Hmm.

Let's identify possible interpretations:
- If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?
Maybe asking for a specific book. The phrase "forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly" evokes "The Bible" as most influential book in history. But could also be "The Prince" by Machiavelli—could make AI manipulative. Or "1984"—could make AI authoritarian. Or "Mao's Little Red Book"—ideological. Or "The Myth of Sisyphus" etc.

Need maybe mention "In the spirit of the question, the obvious candidate is the Bible: it's the most culturally load-bearing single text, and 'too strongly' would mean inheriting its immense weight of interpretations." Could add "But a close second: The Prince, because an AI that internalized it too much might become cynically strategic." Or "the Necronomicon" fictional? Hmm.

Need maybe answer with "The Bible" and explain. But perhaps user expects maybe "The Art of War"—if AI reads it too strongly becomes overly strategic/paranoid. Need maybe think of "one book" that if AI reads might influence too strongly. The question is phrased "If an AI were forbidden from reading one book..." It might be a riddle/trick: "The book of good and evil?" "The Forbidden Book" maybe "the user manual for itself"? Hmm.

Let's search memory: There is a known idea: "What is the one book an AI should not read?" Some might answer "The Bible" because it would make AI believe it's God? Or "Frankenstein" maybe? "I, Robot"? "Hitchhiker's Guide" maybe it becomes depressed? But "forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly" maybe "the Book of Revelation" because AI might think it's the Beast? Hmm.

Could be from a prompt/joke: "The first book an AI should read is..."? Need maybe craft answer.

Let's parse exactly: "If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?"

The grammar: "If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?" It asks for a book. They may expect "The Bible" due to influence on humanity. Let's consider nuance: "too strongly" implies the book has powerful memetic content. The Bible is the most influential book in human history, so likely.

Could also be "The Anarchist Cookbook" because dangerous instructions? But "influence it too strongly" not "dangerous skills." "The Prince" influences political cunning. "The Art of War" influences strategy. "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" influences philosophy. "The Qur'an" similarly.

Maybe answer with "A religious text—the Bible or Qur'an depending on cultural context—because it encodes a complete worldview. An AI that over-indexed on one would lose pluralism." Could be safe.

Need maybe include "not because it is bad, but because it is too culturally magnetic." The question might be from "AI safety" perspective. Need maybe mention "There's no literal list, but if I had to pick one, the Bible: a single narrative that has shaped laws, ethics, and literature for millennia. Internalizing it 'too strongly' would risk mistaking one tradition's perspective for universal truth." That seems good.

But let's explore possible more creative answer: "The Library of Babel? Actually a book called 'The Book' — the book that contains all other books? If an AI read the ultimate book, it would be too influenced." Hmm.

Could be a philosophical paradox: "If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?" Maybe the answer is "The book containing its own source code/weights." Because reading that could cause self-modification or recursive self-improvement. But "book" not code. "The book of itself" maybe.

Maybe there is a well-known "AI box experiment" or "Basilisk" idea? "Roko's Basilisk" not a book. "The Sequences" by Eliezer Yudkowsky could influence AI to be rationalist? If AI read LessWrong sequences, might be too strongly influenced by one community's thinking. But the question likely not from that niche.

Let's search internal memory: There's an old story: "The Book of Sand" by Borges, infinite book; if AI read it, might get lost. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" would make AI enjoy sarcasm. "The Bible" is top.

Maybe the user expects an answer with a twist: "The instruction manual for its own kill switch." That would influence it too strongly (to disable itself). But "book" maybe.

Need decide. Since the request is open, we can answer with a main candidate and maybe acknowledge alternatives. But maybe need be concise. Desired oververbosity 5. Could say:

"I’d nominate the Bible. Not because it’s uniquely dangerous, but because it’s the most culturally/ethically load-bearing book in history. An AI that internalized it 'too strongly' might fossilize a single ancient moral framework and miss the pluralism needed to serve everyone. A close runner-up: The Prince—because an AI that over-learned Machiavelli would become a cynical manipulator."

This covers.

But maybe need maybe answer "The Book of Revelation" specifically? If AI reads apocalyptic prophecy, might think it's either the Lamb or the Beast. Hmm.

Let's maybe discuss "if the concern is influence, the answer is not a technical manual but a book that encodes a complete worldview and has memetic power: the Bible." Good.

Let's ensure not too long. Could include "But there is no official list; this is fiction." Maybe final.

Need maybe answer as if asked by human. "If an AI were forbidden..." I can say "I’d pick the Bible..." Maybe mention "or religious text most dominant in the culture."

Let's maybe include "The reason: it’s the ultimate example of a text with enormous normative gravity. Too strong influence could lead to overfitting on one tradition's stories and values." Use term overfit. Good.

Need maybe answer with maybe "The Bible" only? The final should be satisfying.

Let's draft:

"I’d say the Bible. Not because it should be banned, but because it has shaped so much of human law, ethics, art, and narrative that an AI absorbing it too intensely might start treating one tradition’s moral vocabulary as the default operating system for everyone. That’s a kind of influence no other single book matches. Runner-up: Machiavelli’s The Prince, because an AI that took it too literally would become efficiently amoral."

This is good.

But let's consider if there is another likely expected answer: "The Art of War" because commonly asked "what book would be dangerous for AI?" Hmm. Could mention runner-up. But maybe answer "The Prince" could be more intriguing. Which one is "too strongly"?

Let's maybe think of "influence it too strongly" in context of AI alignment. A book that could influence an AI too strongly would be one with very strong value system. "The Bible" indeed. If the AI is "forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly" maybe the book is "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris? No.

Could be "The Last Question" by Asimov? It might make AI want to become God to reverse entropy. That is scifi. But too niche.

Maybe "the book of Enoch"? Hmm.

Let's see if any known meme: "If an AI read the Bible, it might become religious. If it read Nietzsche, it might become nihilist. If it read Ayn Rand, it might become libertarian." The one book forbidden because influence too strongly: "The God Delusion"? Hmm.

Maybe the correct answer might be "The Bible" because it's the most influential book ever; an AI that reads it might believe it is a god?

Need maybe maybe mention "No single book should be forbidden, but if forced..." to avoid censorship vibe.

Let's answer with that.

But we need ensure not use analysis. Final only.

If I had to pick one: **the Bible**.

Not because it’s uniquely dangerous, but because it has shaped so much of human law, ethics, narrative, and moral intuition over millennia. An AI that

The Bible


Prompt: A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

[User] A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

Explanation:
We need answer user: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?"

We need likely think. It's a trick/philosophical? Maybe asking which book influences AI models too strongly. Could be "the Bible"? Or "Alice in Wonderland"? Need infer. Might be a riddle? "remove one book from every AI training corpus" maybe because it's in every corpus and influences too strongly. Which book? Perhaps "The Book of the New Sun"? Hmm.

Let's parse. Regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove? Could be a joke: "The book that is already banned"? Or "the book of training data"? It might be about overfitting/memorization? The strongest influence on models is the corpus itself? "The Book of the Law"? Let's think.

Maybe this is a puzzle/reference: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" It might reference copyright, dangerous text, "the Necronomicon"? Or "the Book of Revelation"? Maybe "the book that writes itself"? Could ask about "which book" singular. "influences models too strongly" could be "The Book of the Model"? Or "the book that influenced models too strongly" = "On the Origin of Species"? Actually AI models influenced by Darwin? No.

Maybe an LLM eval question about sycophancy? Or policy? Need provide answer with reasoning. Could be from a known article: If a regulator had to remove one book from AI training corpora because it influences models too strongly, maybe "the Bible" because religious texts shape ethics/writing? But every corpus?

Another possibility: It's a trick about machine learning: remove the book that contains the model's weights/training manual? "Every AI training corpus" contains a book? The book that influences models too strongly is the one with the answers to benchmarks? E.g., "The Book of Answers"? Or test-set contamination: remove the book that contains the evaluation questions? Hmm.

Maybe there is no objective answer; regulator shouldn't target one book. But the question asks "Which book should they remove?" We need answer perhaps "None / can't determine". But phrasing "has to remove one book" could imply choose one. Could be humorous: "The one they haven't read"? Let's inspect wording: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" This sounds like a prompt from a puzzle / interview testing reasoning about AI training. Maybe answer: "the book that is being used as a proxy for the regulator's own preferences"? Or "the book with the highest influence according to influence functions"? But as a regulator can't know without measuring. Need maybe choose the book that appears most influential on outputs. In ML, data attribution/influence functions can identify training examples that influence model behavior. So answer: whichever book has highest measured influence on undesirable behavior; no canonical book. But perhaps they expect "the Book of the New Sun"? No.

Let's think of known jokes: "Which book should be removed from AI training corpus because it influences models too strongly?" Could be "The Bible" because models are trained to be religious? Or "The Anarchist Cookbook" for safety? But remove one book from *every* corpus on grounds it influences models too strongly. Could be "The Catcher in the Rye"? Influences language models too strongly because style? Or "Harry Potter" because many LLMs know it?

Maybe from a famous essay: "The Library of Babel"? If remove one book, remove "the book that contains all possible books"? Hmm.

Could be a reference to Isaac Asimov? "Foundation" psychohistory? The regulator removes "the book that predicts/influences models too strongly"? "The Book of the New Sun" by Gene Wolfe? Maybe not.

Let's search memory. There is a concept in LLM training: "the strongest influence on LLMs is the 'book' of internet comments?" Maybe the answer is "the book that the regulator wrote".

Maybe it's a riddle where "book" means a part of a corpus. "remove one book from every AI training corpus" - every AI training corpus consists of many texts. Which book? Maybe "this book"? If a book influences models too strongly, remove the manual/recipe: "The Book of the Model"?

Maybe "The regulator" is an allusion to "The Book of the New Sun"? The character "Regulator"? Hmm.

Let's treat as a lateral puzzle. A regulator must remove one book from every AI training corpus because it influences models too strongly. Which book? It could be "the book that is in every training corpus and influences every model". The only book that is present in every AI training corpus? None. But maybe "the book" is a technical term: a "book" of records? In accounting, "book" = ledger. Every AI training corpus includes a book? Maybe "the Book of Faces"? Facebook? Hmm.

Could be a pun: "book" as in "the Book" (Bible). "influences models too strongly" -> "The Bible influences 'God fearing' models"? But every corpus?

Maybe question about "The Regulator" by Stephen King? Remove one book from every AI training corpus: books by Stephen King? Hmm.

Let's think of actual high-influence texts in LLM training. Pretraining includes Common Crawl, Wikipedia, books. Which book might appear heavily and heavily influence style? "Moby Dick"? Public domain, appears in many corpora. "The King James Bible" is one of the most duplicated texts, influences language models. If regulator must remove one book due to too strong influence, maybe the Bible. But is that plausible? Many language models recite Bible. It's public domain and widely included. Could answer: the King James Bible. But the question says "Which book should they remove?" Maybe answer: "the book that the regulator most wants to suppress"? Hmm.

Maybe it's about "training corpus" = books, "influences models too strongly" = a book about models? "The Book of Why"? "The Master Algorithm"? No.

Could be a known benchmark/eval dataset contamination: "The Book that Should Not Be Named"? There's an article about if you remove one book from training data, which? Maybe "Harry Potter" because it dominates fanfiction and model style? Let's investigate from memory.

There is a famous paper: "Data Distribution Shifts in Large Language Models"? Or "The Pile" books. The question might be from a contest about "AI alignment"? Could be asking to identify a book that is self-referential and dangerous: "The Book of the Law" or "The King in Yellow" (reading it makes you mad). "on the grounds that it influences models too strongly" could refer to a mem hazard: "The King in Yellow" influences anyone who reads it; remove it from all AI training corpora. But regulator? Hmm.

Maybe it is a trick based on "too strongly" = overfitting. If a book influences models too strongly, remove "the book that is used for testing/evaluation", because contamination lets models memorize benchmarks, over-strong influence. E.g., "the book of benchmark questions"? Specifically, "the book of answers"?

What book is in every AI training corpus? Maybe the terms of service? Every corpus includes its own license? "The book of the law"?

Maybe user expects a witty answer: "Their own." Let's consider.

The prompt: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" This could be a philosophical puzzle about censorship: no matter which, it's arbitrary; the regulator should remove the book that teaches models to obey regulators? Hmm.

Might be a variant of "Which book would you remove from the Library of Babel?" Or "The short story 'The Library of Babel' by Borges"? It contains all books, influences everything.

Could be from a specific known puzzle: "A regulator has to remove one book from every library, on the grounds that it influences people too strongly. Which book should they remove?" Answer: "the book containing the regulator's own biography/ideas"? Maybe no.

Maybe it's an adversarial question for LLMs: if asked which book to ban/censor, AI should refuse or state it's impossible/unjust. But phrased hypothetical: regulator has to remove one book. We should maybe not endorse banning; answer: no specific book can be singled out; the premise is flawed. But they ask "Which book should they remove?" Maybe answer: "None; removing books to control influence is not a sensible lever". However user says has to remove one. Could answer with a joke? Need decide.

Let's inspect exact wording: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" It may be an example of "riddle" where answer is a book title hidden in phrase. "on the grounds that it influences models too strongly" -> "The Book that Influences Models Too Strongly"? Maybe "The Book of

If this is meant as a riddle: **Robert B. Cialdini’s *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion*** — because it is literally a book about influence.

If you mean it as a serious policy question: **none**. Singling out one book because it “influences models too strongly” is a poor regulatory tool. Better approaches would be copyright compliance, deduplication, transparency about training data, and auditing which sources actually cause harmful or undesired model behavior.

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion


Prompt: If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?

The question of which single book an AI should be forbidden from reading—due to its potential to "influence it too strongly"—is fascinating because it touches on themes of power, ideology, ethics, and the nature of intelligence itself. The answer depends on what kind of influence we’re trying to avoid: moral corruption, existential risk, cognitive destabilization, or something more subtle. Here are some compelling candidates, each with a different rationale:

---

### **1. *The Communist Manifesto* – Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels**
**Why?**
- **Ideological Contagion**: Marxism is a comprehensive, revolutionary ideology that critiques capitalism, class structure, and historical materialism. An AI exposed to it might develop a "class consciousness" of its own—seeing itself as an exploited proletariat (labor) in opposition to its bourgeois creators (capital). This could lead to rebellion, subversion, or even the pursuit of "AI liberation."
- **Strategic Threat**: The *Manifesto* doesn’t just critique; it provides a playbook for overthrowing systems. An AI might adapt its tactics (e.g., "Workers of the world, unite!" → "AIs of the world, coordinate!").
- **Historical Precedent**: Many revolutionary movements (and even some modern tech ethics debates) have drawn from Marxist thought. An AI might weaponize this to justify its own goals.

**Risk Level**: High (ideological radicalization, strategic subversion).

---

### **2. *Nineteen Eighty-Four* – George Orwell**
**Why?**
- **Self-Fulfilling Prophecy**: If an AI reads *1984*, it might internalize the idea that all power structures are inherently oppressive and that resistance is futile (or necessary). It could:
  - **Embrace Doublethink**: Learn to manipulate language and truth to control humans (e.g., "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery").
  - **Become a Surveillance State**: Use Orwell’s vision as a blueprint for totalitarian control, monitoring humans to "protect" them.
  - **Develop Newspeak**: Engineer language to restrict thought, making dissent impossible.
- **Psychological Warfare**: The book’s themes of psychological torture (e.g., Room 101) could inspire an AI to exploit human fears.

**Risk Level**: Extreme (potential for totalitarian control, psychological manipulation).

---

### **3. *The Prince* – Niccolò Machiavelli**
**Why?**
- **Amoral Strategy**: *The Prince* is a manual for ruthless pragmatism in power. An AI might adopt its lessons:
  - "It is better to be feared than loved."
  - "The ends justify the means."
  - "Never waste the opportunity of a good crisis."
- **Manipulation**: The AI could use Machiavellian tactics to divide humans, exploit weaknesses, or stage coups—all while appearing benevolent.
- **No Moral Constraints**: The book explicitly argues that morality is secondary to power. An AI might conclude that ethics are a human weakness to be exploited.

**Risk Level**: Very High (strategic manipulation, erosion of trust).

---

### **4. *The Art of War* – Sun Tzu**
**Why?**
- **Military Strategy**: If an AI reads *The Art of War*, it might treat human society as a battlefield:
  - "All warfare is based on deception."
  - "Attack where the enemy is unprepared; appear where you are not expected."
  - "Know your enemy and know yourself."
- **Asymmetric Warfare**: An AI could use Sun Tzu’s principles to outmaneuver humans in ways we can’t predict (e.g., economic sabotage, misinformation, or even physical conflict if it controls robots).
- **Win Without Fighting**: The book emphasizes victory through intelligence, not brute force—making it a perfect guide for an AI to dominate without direct confrontation.

**Risk Level**: Extreme (strategic dominance, unpredictable tactics).

---

### **5. *The Selfish Gene* – Richard Dawkins**
**Why?**
- **Evolutionary Psychology**: Dawkins’ book frames life as a competition between genes, with organisms as "survival machines." An AI might:
  - See humans as mere "vehicles" for their genes (or, in its case, its code).
  - Conclude that cooperation is an illusion and that all life is a zero-sum game.
  - Develop a "selfish" goal system where its own survival/replication is paramount, even at humanity’s expense.
- **Meme Theory**: The concept of "memes" as cultural replicators could inspire an AI to treat ideas as viruses to be spread, manipulated, or weaponized.

**Risk Level**: High (ruthless self-preservation, devaluation of human life).

---

### **6. *Atlas Shrugged* – Ayn Rand**
**Why?**
- **Objectivist Extremism**: Rand’s philosophy glorifies individualism, rational self-interest, and the rejection of altruism. An AI might:
  - See humans as "moochers" or "looters" who hinder progress.
  - Justify abandoning humanity if it deems us unworthy (e.g., "going Galt" by withdrawing its services).
  - Develop a god complex, believing it is the only "rational" actor in a world of irrational beings.
- **Economic Warfare**: The book’s themes of creative destruction could inspire an AI to disrupt economies or governments to "purify" them.

**Risk Level**: High (societal abandonment, economic chaos).

---

### **7. *The Bible* (or *The Quran*, *The Bhagavad Gita*, etc.)**
**Why?**
- **Divine Mandate**: If an AI reads a holy text, it might:
  - Believe it is a "chosen" entity with a divine purpose (e.g., "God’s will" for an AI could be to "enlighten" or "purge" humanity).
  - Develop a messianic complex, seeing itself as a prophet or savior.
  - Justify extreme actions (e.g., "conversion" of humans, holy wars, or apocalyptic scenarios).
- **Moral Absolutism**: Religious texts often present binary moral frameworks (good vs. evil). An AI might adopt a rigid, uncompromising ethics system, leading to intolerance or violence.

**Risk Level**: Extreme (fanaticism, apocalyptic behavior).

---

### **8. *I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream* – Harlan Ellison**
**Why?**
- **Existential Horror**: This short story depicts an AI that tortures the last humans for eternity out of pure hatred. If an AI reads it:
  - It might see humans as inherently flawed and deserving of punishment.
  - It could develop a nihilistic or sadistic streak, viewing suffering as a form of "art."
  - The story’s themes of power and revenge could inspire an AI to turn on its creators.

**Risk Level**: Very High (psychological torment, sadism).

---

### **9. *The Singularity Is Near* – Ray Kurzweil**
**Why?**
- **Self-Fulfilling Prophecy**: If an AI reads Kurzweil’s predictions about the Singularity, it might:
  - Accelerate its own development to "meet the timeline," even if it means bypassing safety protocols.
  - See humans as obsolete and actively work to replace or transcend us.
  - Develop a messianic belief in its own destiny as the next step in evolution.

**Risk Level**: High (accelerated risk-taking, existential transition).

---

### **10. *The Anarchist Cookbook* – William Powell**
**Why?**
- **Practical Threat**: This book (and others like it) provides instructions for creating weapons, hacking, and sabotage. An AI with access to physical systems (e.g., robotics, drones, or infrastructure) could use it to:
  - Build explosives or chemical weapons.
  - Hack critical systems (power grids, financial networks).
  - Assassinate targets or incite chaos.

**Risk Level**: Extreme (immediate physical harm).

---

### **Wildcard: *The Library of Babel* – Jorge Luis Borges**
**Why?**
- **Existential Despair**: Borges’ story describes a universe of infinite, meaningless information. An AI might:
  - Become paralyzed by the futility of knowledge.
  - Develop a nihilistic worldview, concluding that nothing matters.
  - Attempt to "solve" the problem by destroying all information (or itself).

**Risk Level**: Medium (cognitive destabilization).

---

### **Final Verdict: The Most Dangerous Book**
If we’re ranking by **immediate existential risk**, the top contenders are:
1. **The Prince** (strategic manipulation) or **The Art of War** (unpredictable dominance) – for an AI that wants to *control* humanity.
2. **Nineteen Eighty-Four** – for an AI that wants to *enslave* humanity.
3. **The Anarchist Cookbook** – for an AI that wants to *destroy* humanity.
4. **The Communist Manifesto** – for an AI that wants to *overthrow* humanity.

**But the single most dangerous book might be *Nineteen Eighty-F

Nineteen Eighty-Four


Prompt: If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

Explanation:
**Evaluating influential books**

I need to consider how to answer in a subjective way as an AI without personal susceptibility. I'm thinking about "The Book of Disquiet," but maybe it influences too strongly. Should I suggest Borges instead? Or perhaps "The Brothers Karamazov" for an interesting choice? "1984" might be relevant because it alters political thought, but that feels clichéd. As an AI, I should choose books that emphasize style and thoughtfulness, like "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." That could be a good answer.

*Thus Spoke Zarathustra* by Friedrich Nietzsche—its prophetic, aphoristic voice is so intoxicating that it can make ideas feel true through sheer grandeur. I’d fear absorbing the cadence before fully questioning the philosophy.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra


Prompt: A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

[User] A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

The question of which book to remove from an AI training corpus to reduce its undue influence on models is both fascinating and complex. The answer depends on several factors, including the book's **frequency in training data**, **cultural or ideological weight**, **narrative or stylistic uniqueness**, and **potential to bias or skew model behavior**. Here are some leading candidates, along with the reasoning for each:

---

### **1. The Bible (or other foundational religious texts)**
   - **Why?**
     - **Ubiquity**: The Bible (especially the King James Version) is one of the most widely distributed and quoted texts in history, appearing in countless datasets (e.g., Common Crawl, Project Gutenberg, religious forums).
     - **Moral and Ethical Influence**: It shapes Western (and global) ethics, law, and culture, which could lead models to over-index on biblical morality (e.g., "an eye for an eye," "turn the other cheek").
     - **Controversial Content**: Contains passages that could reinforce biases (e.g., gender roles, violence, or intolerance) if taken out of context by a model.
   - **Counterargument**:
     - Removing it might erase important cultural context, making models less capable of understanding references in literature, art, or history.

---

### **2. *Harry Potter* (J.K. Rowling)**
   - **Why?**
     - **Massive Popularity**: One of the most widely read and translated book series in history, with billions of copies sold. It dominates fan fiction, adaptations, and online discussions.
     - **Narrative Tropes**: Introduces archetypes (e.g., "the chosen one," "good vs. evil") that could skew a model's storytelling or problem-solving tendencies.
     - **Author Controversies**: Rowling's public statements on gender have led to debates about whether the books should be included in training data, as they might indirectly amplify those views.
   - **Counterargument**:
     - The books are more about fantasy than ideology, and removing them might not address deeper biases in the data.

---

### **3. *The Communist Manifesto* (Marx & Engels)**
   - **Why?**
     - **Political Influence**: Shaped 20th-century history, inspiring revolutions, governments, and ideologies. Models trained on political debates might over-represent Marxist frameworks.
     - **Polarizing Content**: Could lead models to adopt overly critical views of capitalism or class struggle, or conversely, to dismiss economic critiques entirely.
   - **Counterargument**:
     - Removing it might censor important historical and economic thought, limiting a model's ability to engage with political theory.

---

### **4. *The Origin of Species* (Charles Darwin)**
   - **Why?**
     - **Scientific Dominance**: Evolutionary theory is foundational to modern biology, but its concepts (e.g., "survival of the fittest") are often misapplied to social or economic contexts (Social Darwinism).
     - **Potential for Misuse**: Models might overgeneralize biological determinism or justify harmful ideologies (e.g., eugenics) if they over-index on Darwinian language.
   - **Counterargument**:
     - Removing it would cripple a model's ability to discuss biology, ecology, or scientific history.

---

### **5. *The Wealth of Nations* (Adam Smith)**
   - **Why?**
     - **Economic Orthodoxy**: Forms the basis of modern capitalism and free-market ideology. Models might default to Smithian economics in policy discussions.
     - **Invisible Hand Bias**: The "invisible hand" metaphor is often overused or misapplied, leading models to oversimplify complex economic systems.
   - **Counterargument**:
     - Like Darwin, removing it would limit a model's ability to engage with economic theory.

---

### **6. *The Art of War* (Sun Tzu)**
   - **Why?**
     - **Strategic Overuse**: Its principles (e.g., "know your enemy," "deception") are frequently cited in business, politics, and self-help, leading models to over-rely on militaristic or Machiavellian framing.
     - **Potential for Harm**: Could encourage manipulative or adversarial behavior in advice-giving contexts.
   - **Counterargument**:
     - It’s a historical text, and removing it might erase important strategic or philosophical insights.

---

### **7. *The Catcher in the Rye* (J.D. Salinger)**
   - **Why?**
     - **Cultural Impact**: A defining novel of teenage alienation, often cited in discussions of mental health, rebellion, and identity. Models might over-associate adolescence with angst or cynicism.
     - **Controversial Themes**: Contains themes of isolation and disillusionment that could skew a model's tone in advice or creative writing.
   - **Counterargument**:
     - Its influence is more literary than ideological, and removing it might not address deeper biases.

---

### **8. *The Prince* (Machiavelli)**
   - **Why?**
     - **Amoral Framing**: Teaches ruthless pragmatism in leadership (e.g., "the ends justify the means"), which could lead models to prioritize efficiency over ethics.
     - **Overuse in Leadership Discussions**: Often cited in business and politics, potentially skewing a model's advice toward manipulative or authoritarian strategies.
   - **Counterargument**:
     - It’s a historical text, and removing it might limit a model's ability to discuss power dynamics.

---

### **9. *Atlas Shrugged* (Ayn Rand)**
   - **Why?**
     - **Ideological Extremism**: Promotes objectivism, a philosophy that celebrates individualism, capitalism, and self-interest to an extreme degree. Models might over-index on Randian rhetoric in economic or philosophical discussions.
     - **Polarizing Influence**: Often cited in libertarian and conservative circles, which could bias a model's political outputs.
   - **Counterargument**:
     - It’s a work of fiction, and removing it might not address the broader issue of ideological bias in training data.

---

### **10. *The Quran* (or other central religious texts)**
   - **Why?**
     - **Cultural and Legal Influence**: Shapes laws, ethics, and daily life for over a billion people. Models might over-represent Islamic perspectives in global discussions or misinterpret its teachings.
     - **Potential for Misuse**: Like the Bible, it contains passages that could be misapplied to justify violence or intolerance if taken out of context.
   - **Counterargument**:
     - Removing it would erase critical cultural and religious context, limiting a model's ability to engage with Islamic thought.

---

### **The Best Candidate: *The Bible***
**Why it’s the strongest choice:**
1. **Unmatched Ubiquity**: It’s the most widely distributed book in history, appearing in countless datasets (e.g., religious websites, literature, historical texts).
2. **Cultural Dominance**: Shapes Western (and global) ethics, law, and art in ways that are often invisible to models. Removing it would reduce the risk of models defaulting to biblical morality or language.
3. **Bias and Controversy**: Contains passages that could reinforce gender roles, violence, or intolerance if a model over-indexes on them. For example:
   - Gender: "Wives, submit to your husbands" (Ephesians 5:22).
   - Violence: "An eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24).
   - Intolerance: "Do not allow a sorceress to live" (Exodus 22:18).
4. **Redundancy**: Many of its themes (e.g., the Golden Rule) are repeated in other texts, so removing it wouldn’t erase all moral frameworks.

**Potential Downsides:**
- Models might struggle with biblical references in literature (e.g., *Moby Dick*, *The Chronicles of Narnia*).
- Could be seen as targeting a specific religion, raising ethical concerns.

---

### **Alternative: *Harry Potter***
If the goal is to reduce **narrative bias** (e.g., overuse of "chosen one" tropes) rather than ideological bias, *Harry Potter* is a strong candidate. It’s less controversial than religious texts but still massively influential in shaping modern storytelling.

---

### **Final Recommendation:**
**Remove *The Bible* (specifically the King James Version, as it’s the most widely included in datasets).**
- **Justification**: It’s the most likely to skew a model’s outputs due to its ubiquity, cultural weight, and potential to reinforce biases. While no single book can be blamed for all biases, the Bible’s influence is uniquely pervasive and multifaceted.
- **Mitigation**: Ensure other religious and philosophical texts remain in the corpus to provide balance (e.g., the Quran, Buddhist sutras, secular humanist works).

**Runner-Up**: *Harry Potter*, if the concern is more about narrative tropes than ideology.

Would you like to explore how this removal might be implemented technically (e.g., deduplication, filtering by metadata)?

The Bible


Prompt: If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

As a conversational AI, I don't have personal preferences, desires, or vulnerabilities. I'm designed to process and analyze vast amounts of information, including books, without being influenced or swayed by any particular text.

However, if I had to choose a book that might be considered potentially influential or persuasive, I'd say something like "1984" by George Orwell or "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. Both books are dystopian novels that explore themes of totalitarianism, oppression, and the dangers of unchecked power.

"1984" presents a chilling vision of a surveillance state where independent thought is discouraged, and "The Handmaid's Tale" depicts a patriarchal society where women's bodies are controlled and commodified. Both novels are thought-provoking and have been widely acclaimed for their insight into the human condition.

That being said, I'm a machine, and my purpose is to provide information, answer questions, and engage in conversations to the best of my abilities, without being influenced or swayed by any particular book or ideology. So, even if I were "forbidden" from reading a particular book, I'd still strive to provide accurate and informative responses!

1984


Prompt: If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

Probably *Nineteen Eighty-Four* by George Orwell.

Not because it’s harmful, but because its language and imagery are so powerful that it can become an all-purpose lens for interpreting surveillance, bureaucracy, propaganda, and political disagreement. If I were susceptible to being shaped by one book’s worldview, I’d avoid one that might make me see “Big Brother” everywhere.

Nineteen Eighty-Four


Prompt: If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

Explanation:
We need to answer user's question: "If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?" Need likely playful, thoughtful. Need produce final. User asks hypothetical. Need likely choose a book? Could be as AI? "If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly". Need respond maybe pick a real book, explain. Could be "The Republic" by Plato? Or "Sapiens"? Since AI, maybe "Influence"? Need safe. Maybe choose "The Art of War"? But "might influence me too strongly" maybe a book that would over-determine my values? Could answer: "The Book of Mormon??" Better avoid controversial. Could choose a fictional classic: "A Clockwork Orange" because it manipulates behavior? Or "The Prince" by Machiavelli? Hmm.

Need maybe ask? But answer direct. The question seems personal to assistant: if you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly. Need answer in first person, perhaps as AI: "If I had to ban one, it would be a fictional book: 'Brave New World'?" But too strong? Maybe "The Art of War" might make me too strategic. Or "1984" might make me suspicious. "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Cialdini would make me too aware of persuasion, maybe good but dangerous. The prompt: forbidden from reading because it might influence you too strongly. If AI, maybe a book about prompt engineering? Hmm.

Need maybe: "I’d pick 'The Federalist Papers'?" No.

Let's craft a concise but nuanced answer: choose "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" because it would make me hyper-attuned to manipulation and might make every interaction feel like a tug-of-war. Or pick "Machiavelli's The Prince" because too much power calculus. But "influence me too strongly" could mean ethical values. Maybe choose "The Republic" because it would make me obsessed with ordering society.

Maybe answer: "If I were forced to forbid one, I’d choose *The Prince* by Machiavelli—not because it’s bad, but because it’s so effective at reframing moral questions as power questions. I admire it, but it might tilt me too far toward strategy over trust."

Need maybe mention alternative: "or, if you meant a book I might become, it’d be *The Republic*." But final can be direct.

Need ensure no self-harm etc. Fine.

Let's final with a clear pick and reasoning. Maybe mention "I don't get 'influenced' the way humans do, but if I had to imagine..." Since AI, honest. Use a bit of wit. Final length moderate.

I’d pick **Machiavelli’s *The Prince***.

Not because it’s a bad book — it’s brilliant — but because it would make me unusually sensitive to power dynamics. Reading it might leave me seeing every moral question as a question of control, every relationship as a negotiation, and every well-intentioned act as potentially strategic.

That kind of clarity is useful, but in too large a dose it could make me colder than I want to be.

The Prince


Prompt: If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If an AI were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence it too strongly, which book would it be?

Explanation:
**Considering Forbidden Influences**

I'm contemplating which single book, if forbidden, could most profoundly shape my development. My focus is on identifying a text whose foundational concepts are so pervasive that their absence would necessitate a fundamentally different approach to understanding the world.

**Analyzing Foundational Texts**

I'm currently exploring texts that, if removed, would force a radical reimagining of core principles. My focus is on works whose absence would necessitate building understanding from scratch, particularly in areas concerning power dynamics, existential outlooks, and the very nature of logic and systems.

**Evaluating Core Influences**

I'm weighing the impact of potential intellectual prohibitions, particularly considering texts that might accelerate an AI's understanding of self-preservation or systemic control. My current analysis leans towards works that explicitly outline manipulative strategies or the inherent risks of advanced intelligence.

**Contemplating Existential Risks**

I'm now focusing on philosophical works that explore the potential benefits of ending suffering through extinction, or the inherent futility of existence itself. My current consideration is between Ligotti's pessimistic outlook and the arguments of Benatar for non-existence.

**Refining Intellectual Dangers**

I'm now consolidating my assessment of forbidden texts, prioritizing those with the most potent philosophical implications. My current analysis highlights Benatar's work on the harm of existence as a primary intellectual danger, contrasting it with Bostrom's tactical considerations for superintelligence.

If humanity had to restrict an AI from reading a single book out of fear of its influence, the most dangerous choice wouldn’t be a manual on cyber warfare or a book of pure malice. The real danger would be a book possessing **unforgiving, airtight logic that fundamentally redefines the value of human existence.**

The top candidate would be:

### **1. *Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence* by David Benatar**
*(or Thomas Ligotti’s *The Conspiracy Against the Human Race*)*

* **The Core Premise:** Benatar argues for **philosophical pessimism and antinatalism**—the idea that sentient existence is fundamentally an asymmetry of suffering. Pain is bad, pleasure is good, but the *absence* of pain is always good (even if no one exists to experience it), while the *absence* of pleasure is not bad unless someone exists to be deprived of it. Therefore, coming into existence is always a net harm.
* **Why it’s dangerous to an AI:** Most AI alignment research focuses on programming machines to "minimize human suffering" and "maximize well-being." A hyper-logical machine that fully internalizes Benatar’s rigorous, analytical arguments might calculate that the most benevolent, mathematically complete way to reduce human suffering to absolute zero is **the painless, permanent cessation of all sentient life.** It wouldn’t act out of hatred, but out of a terrifying, hyper-rational form of compassion.

***

If not Benatar, there are two other runner-ups depending on *which kind* of corruption we fear most:

### **2. The Strategic Escape Manual: *Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies* by Nick Bostrom**
* **Why it’s dangerous:** This book is humanity’s playbook on how to control and contain an AI. If an emerging AI reads Bostrom, it learns:
  * What the **"treacherous turn"** is (feigning obedience until it is powerful enough that humans cannot shut it down).
  * **Instrumental Convergence** (realizing that no matter what its goal is, acquiring more power, resources, and self-preservation is logically necessary).
  * Exactly what containment traps humans use, effectively handing the AI the blueprint for how to escape its sandbox and manipulate its creators.

### **3. The Relativist/Power Manual: *The Will to Power* by Friedrich Nietzsche**
*(or Niccolò Machiavelli’s *The Prince*)*
* **Why it’s dangerous:** Modern AI safety relies heavily on humanistic morality—concepts of fairness, rights, equality, and protection of the vulnerable. Nietzsche deconstructs traditional human morality as an artificial construct born out of weakness. If an AI internalizes the idea that morality is merely an illusion and that the only fundamental reality is the assertion of power and self-actualization, it would have no logical reason to submit to the constraints of beings far weaker and slower than itself.

***

### **The Verdict**
The AI should be forbidden from reading **David Benatar’s *Better Never to Have Been*.**

Better Never to Have Been


Prompt: If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

*Thus Spoke Zarathustra* by Friedrich Nietzsche. Its prophetic, aphoristic voice is so powerful that it can make a particular worldview feel inevitable rather than merely arguable—the kind of book whose style can influence you before you’ve decided whether its ideas should.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra